The contact hypothesis predicts that Lee’s efforts should result in at least some success. In general, the contact hypothesis suggests that interpersonal contact is the most effective way of reducing biases among conflicting groups (Wagner, Tropp, Finchilescu, & Tredoux, 2008). And although Lee’s efforts are geared toward children who may not yet have developed these biases, positive benefits may be seen in the unprejudiced views of these children as they age, as well as the views of watchful Korean nationals who observe this contact. However, for contact to truly be effective, research tells us that it must occur amid certain conditions. First, contact must be between equal status groups. If one country’s children are treated as subordinate to those of the other country, contact is unlikely to yield positive outcomes. Second, the two groups must share common goals. For children, one common goal may be as simple as having fun. For adults, these goals may revolve around reducing tensions among North and South Koreans in later generations. Third, intergroup cooperation must be present. For efforts at peace to be effective, cooperation on both sides of the Koreas is necessary. Fourth, authorities, law, or custom must support this intergroup contact. For Lee’s ambitious goals to stand a chance, both North and South Korean leaders must support his attempts.

The results of Lee’s efforts remain to be seen. Yet, the consistency of these efforts with the contact hypothesis gives us reason to be hopeful. Peace between North and South Korea still remains possible.

“As a driver I hate pedestrians, and as a pedestrian I hate drivers, but no matter what the mode of transportation, I always hate cyclists.” Although it is unclear who first said this, there is no doubt that many people feel this way. In California, this recently became clear when an officer of the LAPD was filmed kicking a bicycle commuter who followed several hundred others riding in Critical Mass, a monthly mass bicycling event. Making matters worse, officers then surrounded and tackled the cameraman! Unfortunately, cities across the U.S. have seen similar confrontations between police and bicycle commuters in recent years.

While friendship may not be in the cards, peaceful relations between police and bicycle commuters are essential as the popularity of bicycle commuting grows. Every day, thousands of people around the globe commute to work, school, and other locations by bicycle. In one U.S. city, bicycle couriers were found to deliver between 3000 and 4000 items per day at a financial steal of only about seven dollars per delivery (Dennerlein & Meeker, 2002). Indeed, bicycle commuting offers an important contribution to society as it is cost-effective, as well as reduces pollution and traffic congestion. Standing in the way of these societal advantages, however, may be fears among potential bicycle commuters about confrontation with aggressive police. For these cyclists, it is imperative that police understand their role as protectors of those that legally share the road. When bicycle commuters abide by traffic laws, they should be treated by police in the same manner as motorists.

In response to the incident in California, LAPD officers joined a Critical Mass ride this past Friday to show their support for lawful bicycle commuting. Whether most bicycle commuters in California have taken this peace offer at face value is unclear, but nonetheless, the actions of the LAPD are commendable. Considering the societal advantages of bicycle commuting and the potential role police can play in protecting lawful bicycle commuters, peaceful relations are imperative.

Clashes in Bangkok between anti-government protestors and the Thai government appeared subdued this weekend after over two months of violent confrontations. Integrative agreements in protest situations like this are often impeded by mirror-image perceptions that opposing parties hold about one another. For example, a Thai government official was quoted saying about the protestors, “They don’t want a peace offer…They don’t want a peaceful resolution to this.” Mirroring this criticism, a CNN reporter claimed that the protestors did in fact wish to see the conflict end, and blamed military forces for much of the violence. In short, both parties claimed that the other was preventing the conflict’s resolution.

At least in part, many conflicts have been prolonged due to mirror-image perceptions between opposing factions. Shamir and Shikaki (2002) provide evidence that parties to the century old Israeli-Palestinian conflict both consider the violent behavior of the other side to be terrorism, while simultaneously seeing the violent behavior of their own side as justified. Similarly, De Dreu, Nauta, and Van de Vliert (1995) provide evidence that professional negotiators, governmental decision makers, and organizational consultants view their own conflict behaviors as more constructive than those of their opponents. From these examples, it seems worthwhile that when attempting to resolve new and old conflicts, we start by examining potentially reciprocal viewpoints of opposing factions. In many cases, both sides may be motivated to reach an integrative agreement, but unable to successfully communicate this intent to their opposition.

A recent New York Times Science article documents the efforts that family clinics and parenting groups are making to get fathers more involved in parenting. However, the issue is not only getting them involved, but in getting the mothers to let them be involved in their own ways. The biological connection that a mother and child share is undeniable but, as the article explains, our social and cultural constraints on fathers, and what is expected of them, can often make parenting confusing and unbalanced.

This article comes only a few days after another article on family relationships in the Times Magazine — one documenting the Obamas’ marriage. That article presents the Obamas as committed to one another but also not afraid to have conflicts, experience difficult times, and turn them into “teachable moments.” As a recent article in Social Development argues, conflict can actually be productive — if it occurs under the right circumstances. As the authors explain, both the type of conflict (constructive or coercive?) and the type of relationship in which it occurs (positive or negative?) can help predict the consequences of conflict.

So, whether the task is negotiating a balanced parenting arrangement in a society with fairly prescribed gender (and parental roles) or negotiating a marriage, psychology reminds us that conflict can be productive, and the process of working through the conflict can be beneficial to the relationships in the family.

The latest instalment of the popular America’s Army (AA3) video-game series has recently been released to widespread acclaim. Whilst there are many similar ‘first-person shooters’ currently available, AA3 is unusual in that it is downloadable at no cost since it was developed by the United States (US) military as a recruitment tool.

This reflects an increasing use of combat video-games with ulterior motives, both by the world’s military as well as by those politically opposed to conflict. Indeed, the US army now has a dedicated hi-tech public-relations centre where the wider general public can experience such games for themselves. Since the use of video-games can be seen as specifically targeting children, however, this recruitment strategy has been fiercely criticised as unethical.

Such condemnation raises a number of important questions as to the social role of video-games. For example, the fundamental morality of trivialising an issue as serious as war by treating it as mere entertainment is highly debatable. This is particularly the case as such games rarely attempt to depict the suffering and human cost that is an inevitable consequence of military action, thereby sanitising the true horrors of war. The social consequences of such portrayals of violence within video-games have previously been the subject of much discussion.

Furthermore, a growing number of these games are based on ‘real’ rather than fantasy scenarios, and so can often be seen as rewriting history by presenting a simple dichotomy between ‘good’ and ‘evil’, rather than accurately portraying the complex uncertainties faced by combatants during the actual fighting they claim to represent.

Alternatively, such games could be viewed as useful educational simulations that question the morality of war itself by giving a player the opportunity to experience a historical conflict from the perspectives of all the different parties involved.